The 56-year-old describes herself online as a free-speech activist, but her critics denounce her as a "bigot"

She insists the focus of her criticism
is chiefly against radical Islam, but has been quoted as saying that
"Islam is the most anti-semitic, genocidal ideology in the world"

Speaking of her role in organising the
Muhammad Art Exhibit in Garland, she said: "We draw Muhammad because we
are free... We draw Muhammad because our unalienable rights are
enshrined in the First Amendment."

While I do believe Pamela Geller is a hate speech advocate she's also correct that people should be able to criticize Islam without fear of violence and being murdered. Some people criticize Catholics / Christians all the time, and make cartoons about Jesus, for example, and while some may find that offensive that doesn't mean those people should be in fear of their lives and prevented from speaking, writing, or drawing.

At the same time, though, where do you draw the line when it comes to hate speech? If a man calls himself a priest of the White Race, for example, and his following grows larger and larger and then, after awhile longer, some of his followers begin murdering people of other races should society just sit there and let the problem continue to escalate? Same goes for if a black man influences black people to assault those of other races -- should society just sit there and let the problem grow?

I think the moderate Muslims and Christians, per se, and the moderate people of all races sometimes need to step in and stop the extremists from harming others. How this should be done, though, can be a complicated issue when you don't know exactly where the line is.

Addendum - Headline of the story and photos sometimes changed to improve or update article content. Text always as originally posted by source.